debate
Wasted vigils
Liberals and the religious right will stand poles apart until oppressed classes are engaged in reforms for a better society
By Ammar Rashid
The tragic massacre of Ahmadis in Lahore last month appears to have ignited in its bloody aftermath a surge of commentary on the issue of religious discrimination in our country. Such a national conversation (though it may be unfair to call it that just yet) is truly long overdue, some would even say too late. From the deplorable response of Pakistani officialdom, to the spineless reporting by the media, to the frustratingly ludicrous claims of conspiracy by the religious right, to the largely non-existent public reaction to the atrocities by the vast majority of our society, the attacks have demonstrated the alarming extent of the cultivated seeds of religious xenophobia in Pakistan.

With love from Turkey
Travelling through Turkey leaves one amazed at the affection Pakistanis get there
By Rahimullah Yusufzai
Turkey is arguably the only country in the world where Pakistan and Pakistanis are widely loved and given respect. One can feel the affection of the Turks everywhere, be it in a city bazaar, a village or a tourist spot.
At times, one is at a loss to understand as to why the Turkish people have such genuine feelings of love for Pakistan and Pakistanis.

issue

Within weeks of a ban slapped on Facebook in Pakistan, which was subsequently lifted, more websites -- some of the most used in the world such as Google and Yahoo -- face heavy censorship, including restrictions on access and even bans. What's going on?

When Facebook was banned in May 2010 by the Lahore High Court in response to a private petition on charges of blasphemy, there was some public support for the move -- religious groups, political parties, traders' associations, lawyers' fraternity and paradoxically even the media, which one would imagine would root in favour of freedom of expression and defend any intrusion on the right to access to information rather than support curbs, lent support. Within a fortnight, the ban was gone as there was vociferous indignation by millions of Facebook users in Pakistan being indicted for no fault of theirs.

Back to square one

However, it turned out that the process of law that accepted the petition pleading grievance on grounds of faith in the first place, and then the justice that removed the punishment on millions not responsible for a blasphemy competition online, remained inconclusive. The court merely tided over the competition and did not really consider and rule about the merits of the case. Because the ban itself as well the lifting of it came in an environment that didn't provide for rules of adjudication on the subject, the issue was merely swept over rather than resolved.

It is no surprise, then, that we're back to square one with dozens of websites whose origin is not in Pakistan heavily restricted. Another bench of Lahore High Court has accepted yet another petition accepting the right to be grieved by a group with hurt religious sentiment. There's no harm in that -- indeed there are laws in the statute book that recognise blasphemy as a crime and outlines harsh punishment -- as people have a recourse to justice if they come to grief. However, again millions of people punished with restricted access to websites are those not responsible for the alleged crime. The punishment should come after the case is decided (not upfront) and be fair.

Justice hurried is justice buried

The penchant of the courts to dispense prompt justice, even if temporary, on an issue that understandably is close to the heart of many, seems like a manifestation of the adage "justice hurried is justice buried." And because the first case of the ban on Facebook was not properly resolved -- no parameters were set that would inform future decisions by laying the ground rules, it is inevitable that there will be repeats of quick "justice" on perceived grief.

To be fair to the courts, no one from the government or the relevant telecom regulatory authority, or from the Internet Service Providers Association of Pakistan (ISPAK) or consumer groups or rights associations came forward to defend those punished (20 million Internet users in the country) who were not even accused by the petitioners seeking justice. How can the courts, which are not experts on the subject of right to information and censorship, decide cases on merit when experts and representative associations not defend themselves and enlighten the courts?

The failure to illuminate

The May Facebook ban and the June heavy restrictions on a plethora of websites is a stark failure of the civil society, rights groups, Internet users and the government authorities to defend, assert and protect the rights of millions of perfectly law-abiding, taxpaying users of the Internet. Users buy online services that help generate taxes and keep millions of people employed in the telecom and IT sector.

All parties -- voluntary or involuntary -- to the case of censorship of non-Pakistani websites need to evolve a set of ground rules that while keeping on the right side of the statute books incorporate a broad sense of fairness to the issue because this issue will stay in the forefront permanently. The scope and scale of response to the petitions of grief at alleged blasphemy so far remain unguided by an agreed set of rules. The roles of the courts, the government and the citizens in this prompt and wide scale censorship throw up several fundamental questions that need answers.

Questions, questions

Can one person, or a group, impose its will on others despite the law being equal for all? Is there only one type and size of response possible to an act (blasphemy by non-residents) that offends some people or can there be multiple responses that are nuanced and also factor in others who may choose to redress their grief in other ways (such as voluntary boycott rather than enforced blanket restrictions)?

Do laws that help deal with issues in the immediate term take precedence over constitutional guarantees that serve long-term interests of the people and state? Do the courts have jurisdiction to deal with crimes that happen outside the country (after all, none of websites banned are based in Pakistan)? Can justice to one person/group (the petitioner) allow punishment of a massive group of people who are not official party to the case (the millions of Internet users in the country)?

If the court disregards fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution (Article 19A, which ensures access to information) does that mean the government should not even defend those rights which, on behalf of the people, it helped make part of the constitution in the first place? Why do business groups (such as the internet service providers and their associations) not put up a defence for millions of people that pay for those services and keep them in business? Why does the telecom authority whose mandate is to safeguard consumer rights violate its own charter and not only defend taxpayers that pay to keep it in business but also institute a counter case against the indictment of millions of its patrons?

Censorship-ready milieu

The trigger-happy censorship of the Internet in Pakistan proves, as if proof was needed, that Pakistanis in general have still a long way to go when it comes to tolerating alternative views on religion. Also that the state refuses to take principled stands in favour of political expediencies -- once again the government refused to protect right to information for fear of upsetting the clergy. The political parties have also failed to educate citizens and voters on the values of pluralisms.

Because there has been not a whimper from media bodies on the unchallenged blanket censorship, it also proves that the Pakistani media -- a story in itself how it has expanded its freedoms, rights and influence in recent years -- is still not professional enough to defend upfront the right to free speech, the very edifice on which it supposedly rests on; media groups should have applied to become party to the case but did not.

Media literacy

The state, parties and citizens, in general, have failed to make the distinction between the acts of a person/group and that of a state/business. Why ban Facebook, YouTube, Wikipedia, Google, Yahoo and Hotmail when it is a private act (some users of these sites) that is causing offence, not their official policies? The same websites are tolerated when their Pakistani users allows them to express themselves against Indians, Israelis or Americans.

What is really required is an information and media literacy drive that educates citizens and professional groups, including judges, on pluralisms, right to information and engagement rather than censorship and mass punishments. The right to information is key to empowerment of communities and society and needs to be protected vigorously by a network of rights groups, media associations, consumer clusters, citizens' bodies, parliamentarians and professional groups. The right to censor is antithetical to an open society, which halts growth.

PERSONAL POLITICAL

In line with online

Technophiles and the cyber elite of Lahore converged on the Dome Room at Royal Palm on June 26 armed with their laptops, memory sticks and iPads. At stake were bragging rights, two gargantuan cheques and a chance to be anointed as the Bill Gates of Pakistan.

The Pakistan Software House Association also known as P@sha actively promotes entrepreneurship and technology throughout the country. The Launchpad event has become a regular feature on their calendar and was conducted separately in Lahore and Karachi. It seeks to present the most promising new business ideas to both experts and the public to ensure that the budding talent of our nation is recognized and nourished.

The Lahore event drew over 110 applications from both Lahore and Islamabad. After much painstaking scrutiny, the faces behind the 20 most exciting ideas were invited to present their concepts in the flesh.

There was plenty of buzz and hype leading up to the grand occasion. Jehan Ara, the President of P@sha, and Rafaeel Chaudhry representing IEEE made innovative use of social media platforms such as Facebook, blogs and Twitter to publicise the event and recruit scores of volunteers. Well over 200 people were present in the audience for the event.

On the afternoon of the event, the volunteers were on site well in advance, scurrying around in their matching black shirts. The judges panel comprised leading luminaries of the Pakistani business landscape including Dr. Umar Saif of LUMS, Zafar Khan of Sofizar Constellation, Imran Zia of Vahzay, Badar Khushnood of Google and Ibrahim Qureshi of Raffles.

Once the programme commenced, each presenter mounted the stage in turn to deliver a five minute speech complete with visual aids. This was followed by five minutes of intense grilling by the panel of judges which is where the crowd really came alive.

The products on display were in different stages of their development. Some were ideas that were just pet projects. Others were already full businesses generating reasonable cash. There was a focus on social networks and media technologies given their popularity among Pakistani consumers.

One business plan suggested a way to verify college degrees perhaps inspired by the current chaos in political circles. Another intriguing proposal wanted to provide a simple means for people to share with well-wishers that they had updated their phone numbers. A student from NUST dreamed of a social portal that would allow students in his area to know when and where to go to unwind.

A gentleman from Islamabad shared his personal experience of moving into the city and realising that he was ignorant about the best schools to admit his children into. But he converted his need into an opportunity through the epiphany of schoolguide.pk which allows concerned parents to exchange advice pertinent to local schools.

The judges took turns asking probing questions. Amid the occasional barb was the general sentiment that the business ideas were interesting, but the participants could do a better job of selling themselves and their products.

The judges eventually huddled together to decide the winners. They concluded that the best business idea that was at a fairly mature stage was FaceXS by Farhan Masood who returned to Pakistan to try his hand at an identification technology company and already boasted an impressive sales record.

There was another prize for Hozaa which was recognised as the best business idea at an early stage of conception. It is a video indexing company that is attempting to facilitate the search of online videos and is operated by several distinguished academics. The judges felt this technology had the potential to be revolutionary if refined and encouraged the founders to pursue external investment.

These winners pocketed Rs100,000 each which was presented on camera friendly cheques that could be heaved by half a dozen people. The judges confirmed their commitment to mentoring all the participants for their future endeavours. Zafar Khan captured the sentiments of the audience by thanking Pakistan for providing him the resources and opportunities to set up a successful company and encouraged others to follow his lead.

The results were followed by the obligatory photo and networking sessions over high tea. The audience mingled with the judges and presenters over biscuits and patties. It was encouraging to see that the crowd was dominated by young students who dreamed of becoming masters of their own destiny by launching original businesses.

The Launchpad event was a wonderful reminder that while the nation remains wary of terrorism and decaying infrastructure, the intellectuals will continue to find a way to remain productive and give people a reason to smile.

The tragic massacre of Ahmadis in Lahore last month appears to have ignited in its bloody aftermath a surge of commentary on the issue of religious discrimination in our country. Such a national conversation (though it may be unfair to call it that just yet) is truly long overdue, some would even say too late. From the deplorable response of Pakistani officialdom, to the spineless reporting by the media, to the frustratingly ludicrous claims of conspiracy by the religious right, to the largely non-existent public reaction to the atrocities by the vast majority of our society, the attacks have demonstrated the alarming extent of the cultivated seeds of religious xenophobia in Pakistan.

The participants in this predictably polarised conversation, thus far, are the usual suspects. On the one hand are the age-old apologists of reaction and ideological exclusion, consisting of the mainstream Islamist parties, their smaller, more openly-xenophobic counterparts such as the Deobandi Madrassa authorities. Needless to point out, they have shamelessly failed to condemn the attacks on Pakistan's most actively persecuted religious minority and have, shockingly, intensified their verbal assaults on Ahmadis in the aftermath.

The group leading the charge against Pakistan's institutions of religious exclusion is, incidentally, another electorally insignificant one -- Pakistan's liberals. Before one is drawn into unending definitional debates, however, it may be important to point out that liberal here is specifically used to refer to that small, yet vocal section of our educated elite that espouses the dissociation of religion from the state, professes an ideological congruity with Jinnah's arguably secular vision of the country and gives primacy to the value of individual freedom and personal choice.

Something of a minority in this country themselves, liberals have been highly vocal in their expression of disgust and condemnation for the attacks, linking them (accurately so) to the prevalence of state-led, legalised religious exclusion in Pakistan and calling for, among other things, a repeal of the discriminatory legislation in question (namely, the 2nd Amendment to the 1973 constitution) as well as a review of the dreaded blasphemy laws.

All are undoubtedly noble and well-intentioned objectives -- indeed, many of Pakistan's liberals have long verbally advocated such causes well before the specter of Talibanisation spread its destructive tentacles to the farthest reaches of our land.

Unfortunately, a fundamental problem, it may be said, lies in the self-defeating tactic employed by our liberals in such, and many past, debates. It is, sadly enough, a tactic of playing to their minuscule galleries, carried out in continued physical, ideological and linguistic exclusion from the vast bulk of society, in spaces occupied by no one other than their material and ideational counterparts. It is a tactic which has, at its very core, a continued refusal to engage with the messy realities of democratic politics in this country, a tactic that has inevitably led to the ceding of political ground to the very reactionary forces the liberals so abhor.

There are a number of ideological fallacies that are intrinsically connected to this failed approach. For one, in the zeal of their emphasis on the physical/military confrontation of 'religious extremism', liberals contradict their own age-old critique of the national security obsession in this country. Their repeated recourse to the military in search of a solution to fanaticism appears to be an approach incognizant of the role of the powerful Pakistani state institution in cultivating and perpetuating the seeds of religious xenophobia.

In their focus on secularism as a panacea for our society's ills, they fail to theoretically acknowledge the roles played by the exclusionary, oppressive structures of the Pakistani state, its secular elites and international capital in the marginalisation and alienation of subordinated classes and ethnicities -- the marginalisation that fuels the radicalism of the right's violent cadres. This is clearly visible in the lack of any substantive liberal response to issues like the dispossession of the rural peasantry (as has been the case in Okara), the exploitation of the urban working classes (the recent summer rioting in Punjab being a case in point) or the alarming reports of targeted killings by the Army in Swat.

In their persistent refusal to engage the oppressed classes of the country (with very few exceptions) in the sphere of grassroots politics, they appear to have bought in the same hegemonic logic of the military-bureaucratic oligarchy that demonises politics and electoral engagement in favour of authoritarian governance. Far too often have they relied solely on lobbying unrepresentative state actors for achieving their political objectives. The result of such undemocratic lobbying, as one would expect, is the quick erosion of the popular/constitutional legitimacy of liberal-oriented reform.

In their efforts to define themselves in reflexive opposition to the religious right, they have lost credibility in a particularly crucial area in the national imagination – the role of the United States in Pakistan. While criticising the right's populist-jihadist anti-American narrative, they have failed to articulate a much-needed alternative understanding of imperialism that is cognizant of its multi-faceted manifestations and proffers non-reactionary modes of resistance. All too often, inadvertently or otherwise, they have placed themselves in the unenvied position of imperialism's ideological apologists, often in embarrassing disregard of the facts themselves. The continued denial of the presence of Blackwater in Pakistan by the liberal community, until substantively disproven otherwise, is an important case in point.

Also, vitally, in the concentration of their communicative efforts in the minuscule urban circles of the English-speaking world (the English papers and more recently, the blogosphere), they have accentuated the vast linguistic divide that exists between them and the majority of our largely illiterate society. Expectantly, this has also left them wide open to attacks about their allegedly exclusionary and orientalist approach of doing little except 'talking down' in their foreign tongues to the disparate masses that constitute the Pakistani body politic.

The purpose of writing this, it must be said, is not to indulge in oft-repeated bashing of this already much-maligned ideological community -- many (if not all) of their proclaimed objectives definitely deserve greater space in a national discourse being rapidly overrun by violent obscurantism and crude, ill-informed ultra-nationalism. Nor is this intended to undermine the importance of overturning Pakistan's regressive and draconian religious laws.

The purpose is to underline the fact that liberal politics in Pakistan cannot stand to achieve any of its goals unless its adherents begin engaging in the process of grassroots politics in the country. There will be no secular evolution in a Pakistan where the state continues to fatally fail its destitute citizenry and where the religious right remains the only force on the streets agitating on popular issues.

In order for this to be done -- and at the risk of striking some nerves -- the notion of political participation for our liberals must move beyond lighting candles at vigils and extolling there (in admittedly flawless English) the secular virtues of the Quaid, even as the passing labourers stare on blankly.

The Indian media covered the important meetings of Pakistani and Indian foreign secretaries and interior ministers on the sideline of Saarc interior ministerial conference in Islamabad last week exactly following the government agenda. The Indian media was justified to cover the events with its own perspective, but the Pakistani media had no idea how to report from individual or government's viewpoint. The Pakistani media reported what the Indian media wanted it to.

I got an opportunity to cover the meetings and Saarc moot as a freelance journalist. I saw Interior Minister Rehman Malik surrounded by Indian journalists with questions handed over to them by Indian officials. The Indian journalists followed Malik everywhere -- from his office in the Secretariat building to Chaklala Airport where he was receiving his Indian counterpart P. Chidambaram and to Serena Hotel, where the Saarc conference was organised.

Surprisingly, our fellow Pakistani journalists toed Indian journalists while questioning Malik. The local media did not have a plan on how to cover the event and take advantage of the presence of Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao or Indian Home Minister Chidambaram in Islamabad, who came for the first time since the Mumbai attacks. No Pakistani journalist asked them questions regarding alleged Indian involvement in Balochistan, the Indian intelligence agency RAW's alleged role in supplying arms and ammunitions to the tribal militants, Indo-Pak water dispute or unnecessary Indian missions in Afghanistan, which are accused of spying on Pakistan. None of our popular TV anchors tried to interview these two Indian government's functionaries: First, to counter the Indian media propaganda against Pakistan if the two officials from New Delhi had failed to reply satisfactorily to the queries which are in the minds of every Pakistani. Second, if they had satisfied our reporters/anchors, it could have helped bridge the existing trust deficit.

I had seen a list of questions, which the Indian journalists put to the Pakistani officials including Interior Minister Rehman Malik, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir and analysts in Islamabad. However, that list did not have the name of Hafiz Saeed, the Jamaat-ud-Dawa chief. But the Indian media mainly focused on him as New Delhi believes he is the mastermind behind the Mumbai attacks.

On Friday afternoon, Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao met journalists from her country on the 5th floor of the hotel and discussed the New Delhi agenda of talks with Pakistan. The same agenda was later sent to some of the international media bureaus in Islamabad by the Indian journalists to further highlight what India wanted from Pakistan.

If one has watched Indian TV channels and read Indian newspapers, one can gauge how Indian media covered the meetings held on the sidelines of the conference in Islamabad. However, Pakistani news channels and newspapers failed to cover the event from a Pakistani perspective.

I must admit Pakistani side was more forthcoming to all questions by the Indian media. Shah Mehmood Qureshi gave "exclusive" interviews to all mainstream Indian media outlets at the Foreign Office and Rehman Malik, despite talking to Indian media everywhere, spoke at the press conference nine times more than his Indian counterpart.

Contrary to Malik's generosity, Chidambaram replied to only four questions – two each from Indian and Pakistani journalists – in the press conference on the last day of Saarc moot. He spoke for five minutes only.

While India blames Pakistan for the slow pace of Mumbai trial against the seven accused, including the alleged mastermind Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, Pakistani journalists could have questioned slow court procedure in India. For example, the verdict in the Bhopal gas tragedy case was given recently after 25 years. On December 3, 1984, poisonous gas leaked from Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL's) pesticide plant in Bhopal, which killed thousands of people.

They could have questioned Indian officials about Lt Col Shrikant Purohit's trial, who was involved in the Samjhota Express massacre in which 68 Pakistanis were killed. He was arrested about three years ago, but his case has not yet been decided by Indian courts.

Turkey is arguably the only country in the world where Pakistan and Pakistanis are widely loved and given respect. One can feel the affection of the Turks everywhere, be it in a city bazaar, a village or a tourist spot.

At times, one is at a loss to understand as to why the Turkish people have such genuine feelings of love for Pakistan and Pakistanis.

Anas Yelmaz, who is coordinator of a group of 33 businessmen who raise donations to run a quality private educational institution in Erzurum city in northeastern Turkey, tried to answer this question when one asked him as to why he is never tired of showing his affection for Pakistan and its people. "I love Pakistanis because they are my Muslim brothers and sisters," he replied. When reminded that there were more than 50 Islamic countries in the world and, therefore, what was so special about Pakistan, the heavily-built Yelmaz said: "I love every Muslim and I like all Islamic countries, but we Turks have a special attachment to Pakistan. I cannot put it in words because it is something that concerns my heart," he remarked.

Many Turks said they are sad when Pakistanis trying to reach Europe arrive in Turkey and are often arrested for violating immigration laws. "We don't want to believe that our Pakistani brothers have to tell lies in our courts to escape punishment. We tell ourselves that Pakistanis cannot lie," remarked a Turk businessman at the 2nd Turkey-World Trade Bridge event organised by the Turkish Confederation of Industrialists and Businessmen (TUSKON).

At the magnificent mausoleum of Hazrat Abu Ayub Ansari, a companion of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in Istanbul, parents had brought their young sons in traditional, white embroidered attire to pay homage to the martyred soldier and seek blessings before their circumcision. When a group of Pakistanis visiting the crowded mausoleum requested for taking pictures with the boys, the parents readily agreed and felt proud that guests from Pakistan wanted to be photographed with their sons. The young boys, enjoying the attention, also overcame their shyness and agreed to take as many pictures as we wanted.

One experienced loads of affection for Pakistan and its people at major tourist sights not only in Istanbul but also in far-off places such as Erzurum deep in Anatolia, often described as real Turkey. Tourists from all over the world thronged the Topkapi Palace, the Sultanahmet Camii or Blue Mosque, the Aya Sofya or Hagia Sophia, the Grand Bazaar and the Spice Market also known as the Egyptian Bazaar, enjoying the sights and sounds of a country that is the 7th most visited holiday destination in the world. The popular Bosphorus Cruise also attracted an endless line of tourists. But in this rush of people, one got to know common Turks who felt for Pakistan and its people.

At the Spice Market, one had an unforgettable encounter with Cetin Palanci, the 79-year old owner of Malatya Pazari, a popular company that makes Turkish sweets of delicious variety and taste. When told by our Turkish guide that the three customers were from Pakistan, he embraced us and immediately invited us upstairs to his beautifully decorated office. The old man had difficulty climbing the stairs to his first-floor office above his big shop, but he insisted on taking us there for a cup of Turkish coffee. For the next half an hour he made us eat sweets and dry fruit while regaling us with stories about his life and business.

"It is painful for me and my family to hear the news coming out of Pakistan nowadays. There are mostly bad news about Pakistan of bombings and killings. Every time I hear such news I start praying to Allah to keep Pakistan and its people safe," he explained. "What needs to be done to bring peace to Pakistan and security to its people? How can we in Turkey help you overcome your problems?" he asked.

When told that Turkey helped Pakistan a great deal on the occasion of the October 2005 earthquake and subsequently also at every step, the old man said it was a brother helping another brother and nothing more. Cetin Palanci said he was keen to pay a visit to Pakistan in his life-time. "I have been to many Western and Arab countries but I couldn't visit Pakistan despite my wish. I still want to go there even in this old age, but I am told the security situation there isn't good," he said.

When he was reassured that Pakistan is a vast country and the situation is normal in most places, he promised to pay us a visit. One wishes the old man who presides over a big company that he inherited from his father and grandfather and produces the famous "Turkish Delight" and other delicious sweets is able to come to Pakistan during his life-time to enable us to show him that Pakistanis also love the people of Turkey.